EvanAnderson 11 hours ago

Working well for device manufacturers who want users to forklift out gear every few years?

I have been avoiding "IoT" in my home because I want stable 20+ year lifetimes for protocols and standards. I want to know that the outlets I hard-wire today will be controllable with whatever software I choose in 5, 10, 15 years. I want my thermostat to continue to have all its "smart" features for the lifetime of my HVAC system. I don't want separate "apps" for my washer, dishwasher, automatic water shut off, etc. I don't want Internet connectivity to servers that may be turned off at a manufacturer's whim to gatekeep features (or worse, basic functionality). The market is dysfunctional.

hamdingers 9 hours ago

Does a device that provides an interface via a HTTP server need to pass any kind of TCP or HTTP certification?

Maybe I'm making some category error here but I can think of dozens of protocols that do not require certification.

  • thequux 8 hours ago

    As much as I dislike mandatory certification, I can understand the need for it in wireless battery powered devices: a malfunctioning decide can talk the battery life if everything within range, and most consumers aren't equipped to realize that this is happening much less identify the device that's causing the problem

    Perhaps the solution is to make the spec open but make using the trademark contingent on certification (much like USB, for example)

ur-whale 4 hours ago

> The model seems to work.

It "works" in the sense that it excels at separating implementors from their money and locking up end users in a cage, sure.